If David Gallop hoped his press conference would allay concerns of some sections of A-League fans and draw a line under the ‘name and shame’ saga, he will be disappointed.
There’s a feeling in some quarters that his belated response after returning from an AFC function in India was underwhelming.
This is on top of personalities in other media outlets voicing their dissatisfaction of Damien De Bohun’s handling of the matter, which has been the proverbial straw on the camel’s back leading to some to call for the A-League chief’s resignation.
These opinions seem to be in tune with the opinions of the A-League’s Sydney-based fans, with Sydney FC fans feeling some of the top brass’ positions have become untenable, and Western Sydney fans feeling Gallop’s press conference was shambolic.
Both have declared an intention to boycott the active areas in their respective home fixtures this coming weekend.
Melbourne Victory have no imminent home games so it is unclear what the intentions of the North Terrace are at this time.
However, the discourse from Melbourne fans is beginning to revolve around the FFA’s ‘zero tolerance’ security paradigm blends with the high-profile approach of local authorities following the noticeably heavy presence of police at the weekend’s game against Adelaide, in which they staged a 30th-minute walkout.
It is useful to constructively consider David Gallop’s press conference from this perspective in order to better understand where the fault lines lie.
Gallop said, “the appeals process needs fine tuning”. He also said, “we have a zero tolerance approach to anti-social behaviour at A-League matches”, and that “we don’t make decisions (to ban people) without clear evidence. The confidentiality of that is very important to getting the perpetrators.”
This is reasonable on paper but what sounds good as a public relations sound bite doesn’t necessarily equate to effective results on the ground – or rather, in the stands.
This is perhaps why there has been a cynical response from a variety of fan groups.
The FFA’s security paradigm is based upon the premise that disorder occurs at football games merely because of the presence of some anti-social people. This is underpinned by the FFA’s security advisors, Hatamoto, who have a counter-terrorism background.
This somewhat infers the institutional thinking within the FFA that perceives fans – active fans in particular – as a ‘problem’ of which to be suspicious. If that is the case, it may go some way to explaining why they have not been inclined to vigorously defend fans as much as some would like.
The powers that be at the FFA should perhaps consider that such thinking towards a stakeholder isn’t conducive to engendering positivity in return and so they should consider the role of their attitudes in the current predicament.
Presumably Hatamoto are responsible for acquiring much of the referenced intelligence or “clear evidence” referred to, and the people the FFA deem anti-social are consequently banned for their infringements of the FFA’s spectator code of conduct.
What these evidence-gathering methodologies entails is a matter of speculation, but it is worth considering that the FFA are reluctant to divulge them if they would be considered problematic from a public relations standpoint.
When Gallop reaffirmed the FFA’s zero-tolerance policy, he presumably declared that outside fine-tuning the appeals process the FFA have no intention to explore ways of reforming their security paradigm.
Sadly if they persevere with this position it will not lead to resolution with sections of the fan community, and tensions will continue.
It needs to be considered (once again) that modern school of thoughts consider disorder occurring at football games as a process of interaction between various groups. These can be fan-to-fan group interaction or fan-to-security or fan-to-police interactions.
The way in which police and fans interact can either escalate disorder or de-escalate disorder irrespective of whether there are ‘hooligans’ present or not.
It is useful to consider some of Gallop’s comments to perceive what the FFA’s desires in this situation are: “You provide a wonderful atmosphere. Do it in a positive way. Help us grow the game.”
Now it’s worth considering the intentions of A-League fans, and active fans in particular.
Their intentions revolve around being able to freely articulate a localised form of football’s international culture.
This involves things like a free-moving general admission environment as it allows easier socialising, more fluidity and artistic dynamism, and the creative use of items such as drums, flags and megaphones.
Tensions have arisen over the years when stadium policy has not been conducive to such items.
On top of that FFA policy mandates (on the advice of Hatamoto) fully allocated seating in active areas in the form of ‘home end membership’, which has put it directly at odds with fans.
This has led to needless tensions when some spectators want to sit in an exact seat on their ticket and it clashes with the mindset of other fans with an ‘active areas as a GA’ mindset. This has the potential to escalate when stadium security or even police are used to enforce the allocated seat policy, especially when a zero-tolerance approach is used, because an avoidable disagreement over a seat can easily escalate into a banning offence.
All of these issues are roadblocks to fans being able to create a “wonderful” atmosphere in a “positive” way.
On top of that, high-profile policing that goes hand-in-hand with a zero-tolerance approach fundamentally alters the vibe of football events – and the marquee fixtures in particular – from having a carnival atmosphere. Instead, an atmosphere of foreboding results, which is as off-putting to families as anyone else.
And it certainly isn’t in-step with the FFA’s stated desire for a “wonderful atmosphere” at games.
For tensions to be truly diffused and resolution to occur the FFA need to re-visit why there are public order issues at some games, and need to alter their attitude towards fans (among other stakeholders).
Crucially, the FFA need to fundamentally alter their security paradigm from a zero-tolerance strategy to a ‘friendly but firm’ approach and adjust their policies accordingly.
This means Hatamoto needs to go.
Hatamoto needs to be replaced by advisors who have experience in football, who understand its fan culture, and can educate and advise stadium security as well as relevant police authorities on how to apply an effective ‘friendly but firm’ approach in a football context.
RBBAnonymous
Guest
http://www.theroar.com.au/2011/02/18/the-night-lyall-felt-like-mubarak/ I have been reading a lot of articles lately on this issue and then came up with this gem which was written on the roar a number of years ago. Amazing how some things change while others stay the same. Still a bit of trolling like always but a lot of insightful comments on the article. Very relevant in todays climate and quite amazing that we are still not learning lessons from the past. Enjoy a trip down memory lane especially for the MV supporters.
The Auteur
Guest
"If particular fans are claiming they have been banned harshly then its up to them to provide the evidence to support this and have bans overturned, which I’m sure the FFA will be happy to do in such cases." They're not.
Steve
Guest
TBH I'm quite frankly sick of hearing about it already mate. Its just getting boring now. If the fans want to boycott games then by all means do it. I personally don't have an issue with anything Gallop has said. I'm all for banning people for engaging in anti social behaviour, as all fans should be. If particular fans are claiming they have been banned harshly then its up to them to provide the evidence to support this and have bans overturned, which I'm sure the FFA will be happy to do in such cases. As far as this private security firm doing the job it was hired to do, I have no problems with that at all if it makes the games safer to attend for all fans.
marron
Roar Guru
Maybe have a read around some of the issues steve....
Steve
Guest
Maybe the clubs active fan groups need to be looking inwards at the behaviour of fellow fans who are being banned for anti social behaviour, instead of playing the victim and blaming the FFA for their plight. I heard the other day, that half of the 198 banned people are WSW fans. Maybe the clubs need to be addressing their own fans behaviour first before blaming the media and the Gallop or the FFA etc.
NUFCMVFC
Roar Guru
Yeah, look I've never really had any personal dealings, eg I'm not a trouble maker by any stretch, I just think as a policy position FFA would do better to go with a community policing mindset in place of the coutner terrorism one, one where their advisors diffuse tensions between fans and police so we don't get either ACAB as the Lib Dem Senator said of pack animal grubs from assistant commissioners etc But reading this sort of thing is indeed a little creepy and people don't like it http://thenewdaily.com.au/sport/2015/12/02/ffa-security-spy-fans-mistakenly-ban-innocent-supporters/
NUFCMVFC
Roar Guru
Could be a case of a watershed moment What has actually rather surprised me is that we basically have people from all stakeholders bringing the knives out, eg media across different networks who don't necassarily like eachother from Simon Hill to Less Murray are crtical Fan groups who don't like eachother from Cove to RBB to NT to even Melburnians etc are on the same page Arnold saying it's a massive problem for mine a day after Gallops article was a slap down of Gallop attempting to play down the issue of mere criticism. There's no LMA but I'd imagine the Coaching fraternity won't have been impressed with how Ange was humiliated on top of all the fines they get And of course we had Charlesworth supportive of RBB actions but then yesterday our Chairman came out slamming FFA "mediocrity" Hope you realise I am aiming to be constructive, it requires more than just "fine-tuning" an appeals process, this has been brewing for a while This is from 2009, 6 years ago http://www.theroar.com.au/2009/09/23/why-the-ffa-treats-fans-like-terrorists/ This is from yesterday http://thenewdaily.com.au/sport/2015/12/02/ffa-security-spy-fans-mistakenly-ban-innocent-supporters/ It needs to fundamentally change otherwise as I said, people want domestic football to do well, that's why we followed HAL in the first place but if it becomes overbearingly Orwellian with the risk of the media dragging your name through the mud, people will go back to watching Euro leagues or MLS or whatever on TV Can see the same with owner investors, what happened to the done and dusted deal to sell the Jets. Investors are not lining up to contribute meaning no one wants to invest in the FFA's system I'm not just criticising, I am pointing to alternatives You are right though, think this is a watershed moment where the FFA have to move out of 2005 and perhaps this is the point where they re-invent their relationship with stakeholders. The FFA's cultural mindset to stakeholders is at the point in time where it needs to change, they are so out of step with everyone which has been made glaringly clear after the Tele article
NUFCMVFC
Roar Guru
Agree Kaks, as we see from this article from 2009 it has been the case for a while http://www.theroar.com.au/2009/09/23/why-the-ffa-treats-fans-like-terrorists/ The issue is two-fold, if the FFA want to play the "we are a private organisation not subject to due processes of Australian law" then it would be of concern for people to have a private organisation basically engaging in programs of mass surveillance of people which is rather off-putting Especially as it has come to the point where it appears that has played a contributing role on peoples names being dragged through the mud in a major newspaper On the other hand if they want to play the "we are a governing body governing the game" line then they have to adhere to public standards of due process or burden of proof etc Hard to see how fan/FFA relations can heal over the long term to the benefit of the league if this dynamic continues, if it continues it will undermine the league in the long term
NUFCMVFC
Roar Guru
That IMO is where the issue lies, if we go back to 2007 the FFA appear to have presumed issues were occurring because a few fans were bad people and fans were a problem, eg their original press release says nothing about working with fans the FFA probably think they are "preventing" it but as we see it seems to require banning people quite intensely if we have gone from 43 to 198 in 3 years and it has deteriorated the relationship between fans and the FFA which means it does more harm long term then any short term good as it basically drives people away It hasn't prevented negative publicity around crowd behaviour issues because the approach has then been used to attack the sport anyway and there hasn't been any incidents recently and people have had their names dragged through the mud so publicly If you perceive it differently, the police as I alluded to in a recent article have been mentioning increased hostility where basically everyone, this type of scenario plays in the hand of any anti-social minded people as anyone agitating for aggression are seen as protectors against perceived hostility. It seems to be getting worse on the other side too if senior police officials are using grubs and pack of animals to refer to fans We had this in Melbourne a few years ago and it ended up with a senior police officer trotting out a line about soccer fans being most violent when tensions came to a head The exact opposite is the ideal, eg if police were seeing their role as helping to facilitate fan culture within non violent limits than peacable fans would identify with them more and any anti-social people would be isolated. disorder would be contained, we would have a good atmosphere. Instead we have police releasing documents about no overhead clapping, checking and enforcing fixed seating when fans want GA active areas, we have twitter accounts going on about evictions at football events down here etc etc The FFA using counter terrorism approach is in-step and so helps to feed into this unhelpful dynamic http://www.theroar.com.au/2009/09/23/why-the-ffa-treats-fans-like-terrorists/ In Melbourne we had subdued support from about 2009 to 2013, so this doesen't suit the A-League and it isn't conducive to a thriving A-League in the long term and as we are seeing now it has got to the point where teams from basically every club are effectively in revolt or sympathetic to those who are which says a lot Would be much better in the long term if the FFA adopted a community policing mindset, and then encouraged this. They also need to click to the fact that negative publicity often occurs not because there is a problem out of step with other sports, but because some people in the media who like other sports want to keep ours down as it moved from minority to majority sport Where there is an issue with A-League crowd behaviour, it is pretty much a derivative of a general issue of crowd behaviour at sporting events in general, eviction rates are on a par with other sports and tell the real story
70s Mo
Guest
Extremely well written and argued piece NUMVFC. I find these private security firms really creepy. Reports about investigations outside of match day antics are extremely worrying. Ditching Hatamoto would have my support. Whoops - I think they're on to me
Jets Fan
Guest
The comments made by the Police show a lack of understanding of human behaviour, Mr Scipione calls into question his own suitability for his position with his comments. To hold such beliefs is one thing to express them publicly shows an immaturity that is unacceptable in his position. The Media employees are merely chasing headlines, they have no understanding or conscience. The freedoms that the media currently enjoy must be linked to a level of responsibility for the results of their actions. Freedoms cannot exist with associated responsibilities and the future of our society will eventually call the freedoms currently enjoyed by what is increasingly a delinquent press into question. The FFA fail to understand that they are only employees of the game. Their failure to deal with problems in a manner acceptable to the owners of the game will eventually see them unemployed. Time will move on and the game will survive, over its one hundred and thirty odd years in Australia, it has survived much worse than this. However in each and Every case, those who perceived themselves in charge eventually gave way or were moved on, or in some cases circumvented but in every case the sport and its supporters were victorious. Some times at great cost, but always to the eventual benefit of the game. Wisdom does not ever reside in a chosen few!
Midfielder
Guest
This response may change by late next week but as of now we need to consider the greater good because there are a number of things on the go at the same time and TBH FFA are facing this level of frustration arguably for the first time at this intensity and by so many.... we need to give FFA time to think and react ... I would love to hear Gallop say something along the lines we have heard what fans are saying and we accept some changes need to be made ... we will talk to the clubs and fans in the near future ... in the meantime can we all support our teams... By mid next week FFA should have had time to talk to the club owners, some key media foll and maybe some key HE leaders... However if they do nothing and try to hang tough it will spill out of their control...
Kaks
Roar Guru
Yes and no. I have issues with a private organisation spying on fans and keeping hold of information of fans. The police are there for a reason. I can see Hatamoto being used in a consultancy role to provide information on how to manage crowds etc. but thats where the link with Hatamoto should remain. I believe the use of Hatamoto in a role where they privately spy on fans is a gross exaggeration when the FFA should be focusing on other things. Tackling a non-issue that is only magnified by people who are against the game seems - to me - like a complete waste of time.
Waz
Guest
That I agree is unfortunately one of the unintended consequences, yes. And Gallops performance on Tuesday where, instead of saying how good things are and we only have a minority of people causing issues on par or better than other codes, he stuck to his party line that did nothing but reinforce negative stereotypes and irritate the very people the FFA is charged with looking after and protecting. This however is 2015 and the policing of social media for preventative purposes is essential, and this activity is not part of the problem imo but rather a part of the solution if done appropriately and any evidence used is presented to any accused which brings it all back to the questions being asked right.
Kaks
Roar Guru
In my opinion, Hatamoto have been engaged by the FFA to 'show' the media that they are pro-active because apparently football has a hooligan problem.
Waz
Guest
My understanding was this was a lesson learned from the UKs policing of organised hooliganism - the lesson being prevention was better than cure. So as I said it raises the question of why this is necessary?
LordBrucie
Guest
Australian sports fans in general have more influence than they realise. There is no country on earth where attendances at different codes gets so much focus and attention. If you are unhappy with the way you're being treated as a fan by the code's administrators and governing body simply boycott the sport as several A league supporters' groups have said they will do this weekend. The sport will soon have to make changes as the sporting environment for fans' money is the most competitive in the world. If the fans hold firm and boycott games until they get the respect they deserve then the FFA will be forced to listen and act to get the fans back. This is not Europe of the U.S. where there is a waiting list for fans at some football stadiums.
Kaks
Roar Guru
Yes but, is an organisation like Hatamoto which basically spies on the fans looking for a reason to ban people necessary? I know there are bad eggs that need to be removed, but they will eventually be caught out and found without the need for a private organisation to spy on the fans. This is 2015 for crying out loud
marron
Roar Guru
shouldn't, i'm guessing you mean. Can you please direct me to where anyone has suggested that any criminals shouldn't be?
FIUL
Guest
Because it is a criminal offence to divulge information that is subject to the Privacy Act unless you have a legal reason to do it. As Ian Robson said yesterday, people who have been banned for lighting flares have been as young as 12 years old. Not only is it an offence to publish the names & photos of minors, it is also morally reprehensible behaviour.